Friday, November 09, 2012

Money in Politics This Week

Every
Friday, the Brennan Center will be compiling the latest news concerning
the corrosive nature of money in New York State politics—and the
ongoing need for public financing and robust campaign finance reform.
We’ll also be linking to dispatches from around the country highlighting
the national scope of this crisis. This week’s links were contributed
by Syed Zaidi.

Citizens Union has
filed a formal complaint with New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman,
asking the office to investigate a Virginia-based 501(c)(4) that poured money
into New York State Senate races. Article
7-A of the Executive Law requires charities and nonprofits that solicit
contributions from residents, corporations foundations or government agencies
in New York to register with the State Charities Bureau. Common Sense Principles,
which claims to educate the public about limited government and fiscal
responsibility, commissioned dozens of mailers in at least three key State
Senate districts, targeting Monroe County Legislator Ted O’Brien, Assemblyman George
Latimar (D-Rye) and Senator Joe Addabbo (D-Queens). By organizing as a charitable
organization rather than a political committee, Common Sense Principles has
avoided the greater level of transparency that political committees are subject
to. According to Citizens Union executive director Dick Dadey, “registration
with the Charities Bureau is one existing mechanism that can help shed light on
501(c)(4) organizations engaging in this political activity, though campaign
communications and expenditures by veiled third-party entities and individuals
should be disclosed in a manner similar to candidate campaign committees.”

Notable Success by Two Anti-Super
PAC Super PACs

Friends
of Democracy, the Super PAC opposed to Super PACs, had formidable
success in helping to elect reform-minded candidates in New York State and
Congressional races. In an upstate New York Senate race, Friends of Democracy
and a similar Super PAC, Protect Our Democracy, spent $250,000 each to assist Cecilia
Tkaczyk, a Duanesburg dairy farmer and school board member who has voiced her
support for campaign finance reform and citizen-funded elections. Her opponent,
Assemblyman George Amedore, is largely viewed as a defender of the status quo. Tkaczyk
is leading thus far by 139 votes, but the race will not be settled until all
absentee ballots are counted over the coming weeks. In New York Congressional
races, Friends of Democracy was involved in the contest
between Sean Patrick Maloney and Nan Hayworth in the lower Hudson Valley’s
18th district, as well as the race
between Dan Maffei and Ann Marie Beurkle in Syracuse’s 24th
district, targeting reform opponents Hayworth and Beurkle. Jonathan Soros,
co-founder of Friends of Democracy, stated that the results signal an
unprecedented and important message to lawmakers: "Being
on the wrong side of reform can cost you your seat."

NATIONAL

Money
Totals from the Presidential Campaign

Now that the Presidential election is
over, it is time to do crunch the numbers. According to the Sunlight
Foundation Influence Explorer, President Barack
Obama raised $639 million for his campaign, and spent $553 million. Mitt
Romney raised $393 million and spent $360 million. In the aftermath of Citizens United, independent expenditures
were quite heavy this cycle. The duo of Super PACs and non-profits, bearing advantages
such as unlimited spending and secret donors, provided
extensive funds to keep the Presidential campaigns going. Nearly $26
million worth of independent expenditures were made supporting Barack Obama and
over $330 million opposing him, according to totals by Sunlight’s
Follow the Unlimited Money. Super PACs and non-profits spent
$64 million supporting Mitt Romney, and $94 million against him.

Big
Contributions Came Largely from White and Wealthy Neighborhoods

Almost all of the large contributions
that fueled the Presidential campaigns came from people who live in
predominantly wealthy, white neighborhoods. Analysis
by AP assessed all contributions over $200 based on census blocks—neighborhood
units described by the U.S. Census Bureau. Hispanics constitute 16 percent of
the U.S. population but less than 4 percent of large political donations came
from majority-Hispanic neighborhoods. The trends were similar for campaign
contributions from majority-African American, Asian or Native American neighborhoods.
Majority-white neighborhoods accounted for more than 90 percent of big
donations this Presidential election cycle. A citizen-funded matching system, such
as the one in New York City would likely change this equation. The fair
elections system in New York City boasted dramatically
greater political contributions from minority and poor neighborhoods in
City Council races, when contrasted with New York State Assembly contests,
which lack small-donor matching funds.

Citizens Unite Behind
Opposition to Citizens United

As
voters headed to the polls to elect the next President across the United
States, citizens in Montana and Colorado had
the opportunity to demonstrate their views on corporate personhood and
unlimited campaign contributions. The Citizens
United decision by the Supreme Court held that independent expenditures by
corporations and unions cannot corrupt. A subsequent ruling by a lower court
opened the door for corporations and unions to spend unlimited sums as long as
their spending is independent of campaigns. In Montana’s challenge to Citizens United, the Supreme Court
extended its ruling to state and local laws, in addition to federal. Montana’s
Initiative 166, Stand with
Montanans, establishes an official policy that corporations are not people
with constitutional rights, and charges state elected officials with supporting
a constitutional amendment. More than 70
percent of the electorate voted for the initiative. Montana, a solid red
state, provides testament to the notion that citizens across the political
spectrum demand reform of our broken campaign finance laws. In Colorado, Amendment 65 instructs Colorado’s
Congressional delegation to propose an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that
allows Congress and states to limit campaign contributions and spending. Amendment
65 garnered 74
percent of the vote with 95 percent of precincts reporting. The Colorado and Montana resolutions are the first
statewide initiatives by citizens
calling for the overturn of the controversial court ruling. Eleven state
legislatures have already passed resolutions denouncing Citizens United including California, Hawaii, Massachusetts, New
Jersey, New Mexico, Rhode Island and Vermont.

How Money Mattered this
Election cycle

In
the aftermath of the Presidential election, pundits are analyzing whether all
the money spent by candidates, parties, Super PACs and non-profit “social
welfare” organizations actually mattered. Early analysis
by the Sunlight Foundation reveals that the drastic surge may not have been
the crucial determinant of election outcomes, at least in races for the House.
Outside spending did not alter the likelihood of winning although it did
increase the vote share of the candidate favored by the group. For Republicans,
each additional Super PAC million boosted the Republican vote share by 0.16
percentage points. But it is too soon to dismiss the role of outside money and
its impact on our elections. Money mattered to a great extent in smaller
races, especially when it arrived as a surprise and en masse. These four
House races provide stark examples of instances where outside money made
the vital difference. On the other hand, direct spending by candidates had a
positive relationship with the probability of victory. In the 25 House races
with no consistent lead, the candidate the spent more won 60 percent of the
time. In cases where one candidate outspent the other by at least $500,000,
that candidate won 65 percent of the time. Whatever the outcomes, the big donors
sent a clear message to all candidates that they cannot ignore those who
bankroll them. As the American
Prospect put it, on “November 7th, the real game begins—when those who
purchased a full term of access to their favored candidate begin to exercise an
undemocratic advantage over the millions of Americans who merely voted, to
shape the laws and regulations that are written for all of us.”

Several Pro-reform Senators
Elected Tuesday

Fellow Americans disgusted by the
influence of big money over our elections may be relieved by the knowledge that
six new Senators who are
stalwart supporters of campaign finance reform, will be joining the
Congressional chamber next year. The new Senators will be replacing
Senators who were absent, inactive or in some cases entirely against the
prospect of citizen-funded elections. Senators-elect Tammy Baldwin (D-WI),
Martin Heinrich (D-NM), Chris Murphy (D-CT) and Mazie Hirono (D-HI)
co-sponsored reform initiatives such as the Fair Elections Now Act during their
tenure in the House. Senator-elect Elizabeth Warren’s (D-MA) campaign website
specifically mentions her support for citizen-funded elections. Former Governor
and Senator-elect Angus King (I-ME) is a fervent supporter of his state’s Clean
Election system. In the lower chamber, 114 House members that co-sponsored the
Fair Elections Now Act or the Grassroots Democracy Act will join the 2nd
session of the 112th Congress.